British Nuclear Knockback

rsynnott

This may be of some interest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm

While I find this quite disappointing, I'm not all that surprised; there _was_ a very swift u-turn on nuclear energy by the UK government.

SeanW

Nothing more than a temporary setback ... I hope!

lostexpectation

rsynnott wrote:

This may be of some interest: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6364281.stm

While I find this quite disappointing, I'm not all that surprised; there _was_ a very swift u-turn on nuclear energy by the UK government.

had the labour party MPs ever voted on the nuclear issue before that, infact have they yet?

the gov mislead the public on the consultation, thats more then a setback and is exactly the type of lobbied and greased government insult that tarnishes the nuclear industry.

rsynnott

Oh, absolutely, the whole thing was very poorly handled. Unfortunately, it may end up further delaying things.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

Nothing more than a temporary setback ... I hope!

But the political fallout could last years.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

But the political fallout could last years.

Bad pun But if this does cause serious delay, or worse, a cancellation to the much needed renewal of the British nuclear fleet, then there's going to be a lot more coal burned. And a lot more CO2 emissions that this entails.

Greenpeace can be justifiably proud ... idiots. I had a look at their frontpage today for the laugh. This time their focus on defending the oceans and saving the whales. (Rather than Chernobyl propoganda which seems to have taken a back page).

I wish them well in that campaign to be sure, but if they take the same utopian, impractical and frankly contradictory and counterproductive approach to ocean defense as they take to global warming, then I fear the whales are already history.

Capt'n Midnight

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

rsynnott

Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear is, IMO, bizarre, especially in situations like this, where the only clear alternative is coal (gas would cause an undesirable dependence on Russia).

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

Renewable, yes. Carbon neutral, no.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Whale oil is renewable and carbon neutral ?

No. I obviously didn't explain my thoughts correctly. My mistake. Today's court case judgement and the ocean defense business are not connected except by the originators of the action. I do not support whaling at all, and I hope Greenpeace is successful in their ocean defense campaign.

What I meant was that if they approach the issue of ocean defense with the same level of extremism, blinkered thinking, lack of vision and borderline mendacity that they apply to global warming and nuclear power's role, then I fear they have little hope of achieving their objectives - that of arresting global warming or any other.

To put my thoughts to an analogy, it would be like if a political group wanted to have a war against crime, but opposed the recruitment of Gardai and activley protested and blocked the opening of new police stations and prisons, calling instead for a Neghborhood Watch programme, you would quickly start to wonder what they were doing - or if they were serious about and capable of achieving their objectives.

Then that same policital group tells you they want that they want to fix the health system, or whatever ... but given their lack of a credible position on their headline issue you have to wonder if they can actually do that either.

Greenpeace gives me the impression they they're trying to clean up the environment and arrest global warming ... by vilifying one of the best tools we have to clean up the environment and arrest global warming. It just doesn't add up. That's why I wonder if they'll do any better at the other stuff, which I don't think they will if they're taking the same kind of approaches.

piraka

SeanW wrote:

Greenpeace can be justifiably proud ... idiots. I had a look at their frontpage today for the laugh. This time their focus on defending the oceans and saving the whales. (Rather than Chernobyl propoganda which seems to have taken a back page).

The quote below is from a thought provoking eassy by climatologist Kerry Emanuel

Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.

RedPlanet

Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.

It's rubbish. Environmentalists advocate renewable energy, not fossil fuels.
It's the same sort of ignorant statement you hear in USA towards those (lefties) that don't vote for the Dems: "if you don't vote Democrat than your voting for Bush".
Nonsense.

luapenak

I am fairly sure i heard the green peace guy talking on the news yesterday, responding to this outcome, mention that nuclear energy was financially a bad idea (dont know exact quote).
I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic. Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

lostexpectation

luapenak wrote:

I am fairly sure i heard the green peace guy talking on the news yesterday, responding to this outcome, mention that nuclear energy was financially a bad idea (dont know exact quote).
I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic. Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

that was exactly what the court case was about, did you not hear the judge, not all financial implicatiosn were included in the gov paper, thats why they lost and green peace won, would you prefer if greenpeace agreed to flawed document and process, that wouldnt impress you would it,

and seanw , the nuclear fleet, nice fraudian(sp?) slip

luapenak

lostexpectation wrote:

that was exactly what the court case was about, did you not hear the judge

No sorry about that. I just caugth the bit with greenpeace guy talking and then read the link from the first post which although mentions costs, as one of the objections by greenpeace, it does not conclude in that article that it was a significant part in the verdict.
Maybe i should have read into it more, although the details i mentioned didnt come from the governments report.
it is a pity the government didn't manage to sort this out properly. Since this happened in courts it will probably affect many peoples opinions of nuclear energy

rsynnott

luapenak wrote:

I was very confused especially when i heard it later again when i saw the news on another channel and was sure he said that. I was under impression that nuclear energy was extremely economic.

Ah, well, therein lies the problem, you see. The economics of nuclear power are rather complicated due to the need to hoard money for decommissioning. It's accepted by most that modern nuclear plants are cheaper than anything except coal, especially if you apply CO2 charges. Coal is clearly unacceptable for other reasons. However, Britain has exactly one modernish nuclear plant currently (Sizewell B; it's a previous-generation Westinghouse Pressure Water Reactor). Most of Britain's nuclear plants are old MAGNOX things, with a few Advanced Gas Reactors. They're expensive to run, and unexpectedly expensive to decommission (due partly to problems at Sellafield leading to spent MOX fuel being stored on-site). The early MAGNOX reactors were largely used for weapons material production in their early lives, build costs over-ran, and many plants were more or less built as economic aid to depressed regions, rather than to supply major cities. So Britain's economic experience of nuclear energy is horrible. They are being asked to accept, with possibly insufficient evidence, that a line of EPRs or AP1000s will do better.

luapenak wrote:

Either he was talking through his arse or he wasn't very clear about what he meant. I read a relatively trustworthy article not so long ago which said that a large nuclear power plant equivalent can save (make) about 1billion euro more than an equivalent power plant powered by oil over its lifetime.

No-one uses oil, though, more or less. Gas is the main realistic alternative; it might or might not be a bit cheaper, but would ultimately leave Britain at the mercy of foreign exporters, and would make it difficult or impossible to meet CO2 targets.

Lennoxschips

If people are going to keep trotting out the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate, then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

If people are going to keep trotting out the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate, then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

Actually, I trotted out the nuclear vs. gas debate, which is rather more realistic. My only mention of coal was to say that it's unacceptable.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

the old "nuclear vs coal" straw man debate

No straw man ... just reality. You either support one, or the other because there are no circumstances under which any world figure or energy analyst considers both unnecessary. Fossil fuels have been and continue to be the dominant player in the energy game, hence my call for a strategy of all non-fossil options & a good level of conservation.

A conservation alone strategy which you seem to advocate, would require a total global economic collapse if both nuclear and fossil fuels were to be fully discontinued. At very least we can hope to remove ONE of these from the mix - and even that would be very optimistic.

"Coal Vs Nuclear" is a reality for a significant portion of our energy needs. If you can't deal with that, fair enough. The rest of us have to deal in facts.

then I think mentioning Chernobyl is fair enough.

Which just proves how little you actually know about Chernobyl.

To me the whole "nuclear vs coal" thing is like saying being against the war in Iraq means that you are with the terrorists.

Wow, now we bring Iraq into the debate. And you accuse ME of beating a straw man?

Lennoxschips

"Coal Vs Nuclear" is a reality for a significant portion of our energy needs. If you can't deal with that, fair enough. The rest of us have to deal in facts.

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear. You've seen the uproar about Shell to sea. Now where do you think in Ireland people are going to want a reactor built near them? Who wants the waste stored in their county? The waste which no nuclear country has gotten around to disposing of despite 50 years of trying?

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear. You've seen the uproar about Shell to sea. Now where do you think in Ireland people are going to want a reactor built near them? Who wants the waste stored in their county? The waste which no nuclear country has gotten around to disposing of despite 50 years of trying?

Finland will start permanent disposal shortly. However, while the waste of a nuclear power plant is stored in a contained area, the waste of a coal plant is stored in the lungs of the local people and in the atmosphere.

Who wants a coal power plant built near them, when it comes to it? A gas one might be more acceptable, but if foreign suppliers of gas ever become uncooperative, as they did with the Ukraine, people aren't going to like the blackouts.

Lennoxschips

I don't think I mentioned coal just there.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

I don't think I mentioned coal just there.

It is, however, one of three practical alternatives. I assume you don't want to just switch the power off, so I'm guessing you want to use something in lieu of nuclear.

SeanW

You didn't say what we should (realistically) do instead either ... With fossil fuels, the waste gets spewn into the air.

That's really well "managed" isn't it?

As for the problems of political acceptance, yes those are issues that 'my' side has to deal with ... That's kind why I was hoping the British would get it together so we could import even more nuclear power than we do now (0.17% according to the Commission for energy regulation).

But you also have to account for the fact that Ireland is 97% dependent on fossil fuels. Please stop trying to dodge the issue. But of course there was an attempt to do something about Ireland's runaway reliance on oil etc in the 1970s. But that never happened and in the interim, we've burned lots of gas and peat. And it looks like we're going to continue.

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote:

Heh. Well the facts are that nobody in Ireland wants nuclear.

What facts are you talking about?

Lennoxschips

Our democratically elected public representatives, from almost all parties, have been consistently against Nuclear power. That's the reality of Ireland today.

rsynnott

But will that continue, as electricity requirements grow? The opinions of our democratically elected public representatives are notoriously changeable. Which is a good thing, by the way, because _situations_ change. Nuclear starts to look a lot more attractive (and economical) when the alternatives are liable to be hit by hefty CO2 charges, and run on increasingly insecure fuel supplies, while nuclear continues to become more economical and the first permanent waste depositories open. The UK government has had a bit of a turnaround, you will note; in 2003 there were no plans to build any more nuclear plants, ever. Something similar appears to be happening in Germany.

Lennoxschips

There hasn't been a new Nuclear plant in the UK in decades and the German parliament decided to phase out Nuclear power five years ago. The only thing the UK has said is that they are not ruling it out indefinitely.

I think when government think tanks actually sit down and analyse the costs of setting up nuclear power, the uranium supply situation, the actual uranium fuel cycle carbon output, the security question, the contamination risks, spiraling cleanup costs, waste storage coasts etc., that they'll wonder what the hell they are getting into. However, some politicians, who think mostly in terms of short term, might see it as a quick fix to meet short term CO2 targets, even if it does present big problems in the long term.

Of course however, the Nuclear industry aren't turkeys voting for Christmas, they have a very large and powerful lobby. Their propaganda campaign these last few years to rebrand themselves as green has been quite impressive.

Capt'n Midnight

In the US the worked out it would be cheaper to insulate factories then build power plants to heat them. But insulation has a capital cost so private industry ain't going to do it.

In England and Wales if you have a gas boiler , it has to be a condensing boiler. Ireland is in the middle of a housing boom, if we had mandated that all new gas boilers had to be condensing, or we could have set standards of solar energy like Spain does now.

Take into account the material cost of building a house compared to the tax take the government take on it, and the land, and the tax on wages earned by the builders, and by the mortgague payer and how much we'd pay for Koyoto. We could easily afford to superinsulate all new houses in the form of a tax break. Would not cost the government anything as they would save on carbon tax , and provision of new power plants.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

There hasn't been a new Nuclear plant in the UK in decades and the German parliament decided to phase out Nuclear power five years ago. The only thing the UK has said is that they are not ruling it out indefinitely.

Indeed, Sizewell B in 1995. And didn't they recently start looking for tenders on building a new one? The German parliament decided to phase it out, sure, but the question seems to be about to be re-opened.

Lennoxschips wrote:

I think when government think tanks actually sit down and analyse the costs of setting up nuclear power,

High capital investment, certainly.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the uranium supply situation,

Not a problem. Proven reserves for decades of current use, and at least centuries of fast breeder use. Russia and India are currently building commercial-scale fast breeder reactors.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the actual uranium fuel cycle carbon output,

Can be hefty, but doesn't compare to the carbon output of gas or coal still on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the security question,

This would be security to stop people going in and causing a meltdown? Hasn't been a problem so far.

Lennoxschips wrote:

the contamination risks,

The ones that current nuclear plants have in spades, of course. Everyone in France is actually dead.

Lennoxschips wrote:

spiraling cleanup costs,

Spiralling? Really? They did for MAGNOX plants in the UK, as a result of poor planning and insufficient immediate reprocessing capacity. I'm not convinced that they ALWAYS spiral, though.

Lennoxschips wrote:

waste storage coasts etc.,

Go look at the Finnish storage system.

Lennoxschips wrote:

that they'll wonder what the hell they are getting into. However, some politicians, who think mostly in terms of short term, might see it as a quick fix to meet short term CO2 targets, even if it does present big problems in the long term.

Do you know of any other way to meet those targets?

Lennoxschips wrote:

Of course however, the Nuclear industry aren't turkeys voting for Christmas, they have a very large and powerful lobby. Their propaganda campaign these last few years to rebrand themselves as green has been quite impressive.

Erm, they've always been green, relatively speaking. France's nuclear shift did not happen because Franatome had a nice advertising programme; it happened as a national policy decision. The renewables industry has spent a fair bit sexing up their products, too, and the fossil fuel industry would if not for the fact that no-one would take them seriously.

Lennoxschips

Why such a sarcastic tone?

Just a few points in reply:

- The German parliament passed a bill five years ago to phase out nuclear power. They haven't passed any bill otherwise as of yet. Anything else is hearsay.

- Uranium is a non-renewable source. As you say, at current usage levels there are indeed "decades" of supply left, but if it is seriously going to provide the bulk of the world's energy (as people here are proposing), including powering a hydrogen-based economy, then there is less than a decade of useful uranium left, until we get in to the uranium that is so difficult to extract that there is little useful energy gain (and large CO2 output). Breeder reactors have proved to be problematic, but even then you are working with a non-renewable resource.

- Finland's waste disposal facility is in the development stage as of yet. There isn't a single gram of permanently stored radioactive waste in the world, despite 50 years of trying. Unless you count waste at the bottom of seas of course. However, even if the Finnish solution proves to be decent, where in Ireland could such a site be constructed? Do we have large crystalline rock formations in vast unpopulated areas?

- As for security, I am referring to security of the plants, yes, and materials (radioactive materials have been "unaccounted for" in both the UK and Russia), as well as the waste disposal sites themselves. The waste sites will also have to be secured for over 100,000 years until the waste has been reduced to an acceptable level. What's to stop terrorists in 1,000 years from now teleporting some waste out for themselves? You have to think of the timescales involved. Throwing it in a hole is a poor solution, in my opinion.

- Contamination. Sellafield and Three Mile Island have both been shown to affect the health of animals and human populations in the area. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land in Ukraine and Belarus that are uninhabitable. It could happen again.

- Spiraling cleanup costs: 105 billion euro to clean up Britain's first generation of nuclear plants. Up from a previous estimate of 84 billion.

- Other ways to meet targets: Better urban planning, reduced food mileage, sustainable living, better insulation, small and large scale renewable, reduced energy usage, public transportation. Of course the Nuclear industry would prefer if we kept living in the unsustainable way we currently do (especially the current the Irish lifestyle), because that creates perceived demand for their product.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

Why such a sarcastic tone?

Just a few points in reply:

- The German parliament passed a bill five years ago to phase out nuclear power. They haven't passed any bill otherwise as of yet. Anything else is hearsay.

Indeed they did, and they haven't. Want to bet on which way that goes in the next decade? Germany currently derives 30% of its electricity from nuclear plants, mostly quite large newish nuclear plants, with the capital costs paid.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Uranium is a non-renewable source. As you say, at current usage levels there are indeed "decades" of supply left, but if it is seriously going to provide the bulk of the world's energy (as people here are proposing), including powering a hydrogen-based economy, then there is less than a decade of useful uranium left, until we get in to the uranium that is so difficult to extract that there is little useful energy gain (and large CO2 output). Breeder reactors have proved to be problematic, but even then you are working with a non-renewable resource.

First, current extractable supply: the low estimates are in the hundred year range, the high ones are in the millenia range. That's before you look at the sea water content, with is extractable, apparently. And while costs to extract more would go up, in a hydrogen-based economy emissions wouldn't be so bad.

Breeder reactors have been vaguely problematic, granted, largely in terms of economics. They work, though; one in France and one in Russia have been merrily producing power for decades, and the Russians and Indians are now building larger ones. With fuel cost increases (and fuel costs only make up a small part of a reactor's running costs) they will become more practical, and they may be economic even now, if fed thorium. (India has huge thorium reserves, hence their interest).

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Finland's waste disposal facility is in the development stage as of yet. There isn't a single gram of permanently stored radioactive waste in the world, despite 50 years of trying. Unless you count waste at the bottom of seas of course. However, even if the Finnish solution proves to be decent, where in Ireland could such a site be constructed? Do we have large crystalline rock formations in vast unpopulated areas?

Indeed, the Finnish solution should be on-line by 2020, all going well. The problems with the US site are largely political. And Ireland will presumably have the option of exporting waste.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- As for security, I am referring to security of the plants, yes, and materials (radioactive materials have been "unaccounted for" in both the UK and Russia), as well as the waste disposal sites themselves. The waste sites will also have to be secured for over 100,000 years until the waste has been reduced to an acceptable level. What's to stop terrorists in 1,000 years from now teleporting some waste out for themselves? You have to think of the timescales involved. Throwing it in a hole is a poor solution, in my opinion.

If terrorists in 1000 years have teleporters, nuclear waste would be of only academic interest. As far as I remember, the Sellafield 'losses' were due to the difficulty in perfectly estimating the yield of fuel reprocessing, and were well within international standards.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Contamination. Sellafield and Three Mile Island have both been shown to affect the health of animals and human populations in the area. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land in Ukraine and Belarus that are uninhabitable. It could happen again.

As far as I remember, there's no conclusive evidence of harm to humans from Three Mile Island (or from the Windscale fire, in the 50s, which released far more radioactive material). As for Sellafield, while it certainly did once emit a lot of untreated waste, there's little evidence that it does any more.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Spiraling cleanup costs: 105 billion euro to clean up Britain's first generation of nuclear plants. Up from a previous estimate of 84 billion.

Mentioned this. Britain is a special case, due to its unique domestic nuclear energy setup.

Lennoxschips wrote:

- Other ways to meet targets: Better urban planning, reduced food mileage, sustainable living, better insulation, small and large scale renewable, reduced energy usage, public transportation. Of course the Nuclear industry would prefer if we kept living in the unsustainable way we currently do (especially the current the Irish lifestyle), because that creates perceived demand for their product.

Certainly efforts should be made to reduce usage. I doubt that they will stop rising usage, however much they may slow it, though. Of course, implementing many of them might be a problem; we are not a command economy. In any case, our current power generation infrastructure will not last for ever and it will not be possible to fuel it securely forever. Wind power, while it is certainly of some use, is unable to provide base load power, and small-scale wind solutions are thus far extremely unimpressive.

Lennoxschips

First, current extractable supply: the low estimates are in the hundred year range, the high ones are in the millenia range. That's before you look at the sea water content, with is extractable, apparently. And while costs to extract more would go up, in a hydrogen-based economy emissions wouldn't be so bad.

The decades estimate is based on useful uranium. Sure, there's millenia of uranium left, but it's too difficult to get to or too poor quality. It's not that the costs are too high (as you correctly point out, the cost of raw uranium is a drip in the nuclear running costs), it's the energy required to get to it and refine it is more than the energy you would get out of it. The same goes for seawater.

As for the waste, you could export it as you say, but then you would be at the mercy of other nations in terms of pricing for storage. Would other nations like Finland and the US be willing to import other nations' nuclear waste? Would their electorate stand for it?

And another point is that the insurance industry refuses to insure nuclear power plants anymore, so it's up to governments to back up the industry in this respect.

I'd like to be convinced by the nuclear argument, but as yet I am not. But I have heard some good arguments in this thread, from both sides.

SeanW

Lennoxschips wrote:

And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land in Ukraine and Belarus that are uninhabitable. It could happen again.

Then you're just making it ever more obvious that you don't actually know what happened at Chernobyl. I would advise you to stop going on about it before you trash (what remains of) your credibility.

To say "it COULD happen again" is correct ... if you ignore the reality of the Soviet Government and it's nuclear programme.

The decades estimate is based on useful uranium. Sure, there's millenia of uranium left, but it's too difficult to get to or too poor quality. It's not that the costs are too high (as you correctly point out, the cost of raw uranium is a drip in the nuclear running costs), it's the energy required to get to it and refine it is more than the energy you would get out of it. The same goes for seawater.

Correct ... if you ignore reprocessing and thorium breeders - and if you ignore the fact that noone has been looking for Uranium for 30 years PLUS there are places where there are large reserves that cannot be touched for legal reasons.

If:
1: Exploration were restarted
2: countries that under utilise nuclear fuel begin to reprocess their spent fuels (the U.S. is showing signs of starting to do this)
3: Breeder reactors and other designs for using Thorium became more commonplace

The fallacy of "only 50 years at current usage" falls flat on its face.

but then you would be at the mercy of other nations in terms of pricing for storage.

Which would be better than the current situation where we will be at the mercy of EVERY nation as East as Japan for the piping of Natural Gas.

Finland has basically solved the problem of long term storage for itself, but remember it has to becasue they don't reprocess so they make a lot more waste per tW/h than the likes of France.

If terrorists in 1000 years have teleporters

You really think people will need our nuclear waste to kill each other in 1000 years time?

Correct ... if you ignore the reality that throughout all of history, mankind has made a science of killing people ever more efficiently. They won't need our nuclear waste, so unfortunately the issue doesn't arise.

Our democratically elected public representatives, from almost all parties, have been consistently against Nuclear power.

Political expediency. They know that the likes of Greenpeace etc has everyone in Ireland scared senseless that nuclear power is some horrible, evil boogeyman that destroys all before it, so instead of showing leadership, they chase votes. You can't blame them for that - a politician has to pursue policies that people want, even if it's completely wrong.

That's why those who consdier themselves environmentalists have a duty to tell people the truth about the various forms of electricity generation, but most Green paraphernalia hides the weaknesses of renewables and overstates by many orders of mangitude the weaknesses of nuclear.

In the meantime, I'd encourage readers of this thread to get the facts about Nuclear power and climate change.

Also, required viewing is this video a BBC documentary about the cause of the Chernobyl accident.

Lennoxschips

Then you're just making it ever more obvious that you don't actually know what happened at Chernobyl. I would advise you to stop going on about it before you trash (what remains of) your credibility.

There's no need to be like that.

I know that Chernobyl was a crappy design and had no concrete bunker-like outer housing. But you could conceivably have a nuclear accident that even breeches the concrete housing in modern nuclear plant. Yes, it's a small risk, but it could happen. You can't just ignore it, you have to include it in any decision to go for nuclear power.

You really think people will need our nuclear waste to kill each other in 1000 years time?

Not really, I'm just pointing out that by choosing Nuclear power you are creating a logistical problem that will burden the people of Ireland for 100,000 years, if humanity lasts that long. The costs of 100,000 years worth of round the clock security should be factored into any kW/hr estimate for Nuclear power.

If:
1: Exploration were restarted
2: countries that under utilise nuclear fuel begin to reprocess their spent fuels (the U.S. is showing signs of starting to do this)
3: Breeder reactors and other designs for using Thorium became more commonplace

That's three IFs.

1: Is there really more high quality uranium ore out there? Geologists have explored most of the world looking for oil and have surely documented what they've found.
2: Showing signs / back on the agenda etc etc. Is the US reprocessing fuel or not?
3: Perhaps such developments could be made. But then you could equally say that wind power could solve all our problems if we develop hydrogen fuel cells to store power when there is less wind.

In the meantime, I'd encourage readers of this thread to get the facts about Nuclear power and climate change.

Also, required viewing is this video a BBC documentary about the cause of the Chernobyl accident.

That first link is from the World Nuclear Association and written by the Uranium Institute. Once again, I don't expect the turkeys to be big fans of Christmas.

The BBC documentary is a good one, I saw it when it was on the telly last year.

SeanW

But you could conceivably have a nuclear accident that even breeches the concrete housing in modern nuclear plant.

It would be very, very unlikely. You'd have a better chance of being hit by a meteor. And with new plants being built to withstand jet impacts like the new Finnish EPR at Olkiluoto, and some reactors being built underground, such as the proposal for a "micro-nuke" 10 MW PBMR in Galena, Alaska, the miniscule chance of a Chernoybl style catastrophe becomes smaller and smaller each year.

The Chernobyl accident itself was caused by a deadly combination of rubbish technology, even worse containment, and a Soviet government horribly corrupt, reckless and incompetent so far beyond our comprehension that it makes Bertie look like a wonderful god-like visionary. When our society becomes such a complete failure at every level that you have to queue up for 2 weeks, and then bribe an official, just to buy a loaf of bread, we can talk about Chernobyl style catastrophes being a real concern. Until then, forget it.

The costs of 100,000 years worth of round the clock security should be factored into any kW/hr estimate for Nuclear power.

By that reasoning, these costs should also be applied to a decision to leave a known Uranium mine untouched as well.

Is there really more high quality uranium ore out there? Geologists have explored most of the world looking for oil and have surely documented what they've found.

They looked for oil, not Uranium. The Uranium miners need a market signal, rising prices, to go exploring again. The industry has taken a bunch of hits over the past 30 years, both with losing customers and US and former Soviet stockpiles being dumped onto civilian markets in the 1990s. The Uranium miners haven't had a reason to go looking for Uranium, so they obviously haven't found any.

The U.S. policy is to begin recycling spent fuels. Linky.
I guess Bush did one good thing.

I should also point out that the new EPR at Flamanville is 16% more fuel efficient than France's 2nd generation of plants, and that it has a design lifetime of 60 years.

That first link is from the World Nuclear Association and written by the Uranium Institute. Once again, I don't expect the turkeys to be big fans of Christmas.

Point taken, but you have to accept that it's more realistic than this propoganda.

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

There's no need to be like that.

I know that Chernobyl was a crappy design and had no concrete bunker-like outer housing. But you could conceivably have a nuclear accident that even breeches the concrete housing in modern nuclear plant. Yes, it's a small risk, but it could happen. You can't just ignore it, you have to include it in any decision to go for nuclear power.

It could happen? Do you have any references? An actual Chernobyl-style explosion that would breach a containment unit in a pressure water reactor? I find that highly implausible. Meltdowns with attendant clean-up problems are still a risk, somewhat (although it could be argued that with newer boiling water reactors a meltdown could only occur through deliberate sabotage).

Using Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear energy is a bit like using Bhopal (which killed rather more people; 60,000 or so) as an argument against pesticides, or using thalidomide as an argument against pharmaceuticals, in my opinion. Possibly worse; the difference in safety provision between an RBMK reactor with no containment unit and, say, an EPR with a containment unit is far greater than between Bhopal and a modern chemical plant.

Lennoxschips wrote:

3: Perhaps such developments could be made. But then you could equally say that wind power could solve all our problems if we develop hydrogen fuel cells to store power when there is less wind.

Erm, breeder reactors are about half a century old, now. In fact, most nuclear reactors are breeders. This is why nuclear reprocessing is such a big deal for modern plants, and it is why the Americans are so foolish not to do it (in fairness, they are currently talking about building a MOX plant; it may require an old executive order to be overturned, though). FAST breeder reactors, which produce more fissile material than they consume, are newer; practical ones turned up in the 60s. There are currently large practical FBRs in Russia and France; the UK and US once had small practical ones, and India had just built a small one. A fullscale unit in Japan is currently awaiting restart. This is a demonstrated technology, and it's perfectly usable now. It is a little behind the curve (and a little more expensive) compared to current third generation plants, but development is accelerating.

Reliable vaguely efficient long-lasting cheap hydrogen fuel cells are currently a pipe dream. This won't be the case for ever, but for the moment, a comparison between a mature working technology and an experimental technology is silly.

In any case, the current generation of plants only have a (reactor) operating life of about 60 years. (This appears to be standard for all PWRs, and is apparently something to do with radiation damage to the reactor vessel.) The world's uranium supply won't run out in that time.

Lennoxschips

Reliable vaguely efficient long-lasting cheap hydrogen fuel cells are currently a pipe dream.

That was my point. Reliable and economic widespread breeder reactor programmes or thorium fueled nuclear power are also a pipe dream.

Breeder reactors have been developed up until this point (Russia, India, France, US) as part of military programmes or by government research, not because they are economically viable.

Fast Breeder Reactors have been demonstrated to work, as you say, but are also still in development and have not been shown to be economically feasible yet.

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote:

When our society becomes such a complete failure at every level that you have to queue up for 2 weeks, and then bribe an official, just to buy a loaf of bread, we can talk about Chernobyl style catastrophes being a real concern. Until then, forget it.

Just how many tribunals are running at the moment over allegations of corruption.

How much of our wages goes into paying for the increase in house prices above inflation, most of which is split between the government and a handful of developers. How many of our politicians and planners and business men do we really trust ?

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/index.html

Weapon-grade plutonium is nearly pure plutonium 239, whereas the plutonium in commercial fuel is much lower in plutonium 239 and higher in the isotopes that are undesirable for weapons use. This, however, is not a crucial difference, since all plutonium can be used in weapons. The US nuclear weapons arsenal does not utilize commercial (reactor grade) plutonium from spent fuel. Tests were completed, however, to confirm that reactor grade plutonium could be used in a nuclear explosive and is therefore a nonproliferation concern.

Tokyo pledged in 1991 that it would adhere to the principle of not retaining surplus plutonium. Since 1994 the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) has published annual inventories of separated plutonium. As of December 1995, the total inventory of separated plutonium managed by Japan was 16.1 tons, with 4.7 tons in Japan and 11.4 tons in Europe. By 2010, the amount of plutonium being stockpiled in Europe will have mounted to 45 tons. A nuclear bomb similar to the one exploded in Nagasaki can be made with seven to eight kg of plutonium.

And the Japanese didn't even want to pay for an escort for the ship carrying the plutonium, other navies stepped in to do it.

Lennoxschips

The costs of 100,000 years worth of round the clock security should be factored into any kW/hr estimate for Nuclear power.

By that reasoning, these costs should also be applied to a decision to leave a known Uranium mine untouched as well.

There are no uranium mines in Ireland. But anyway, naturally occurring uranium has to be mined, processed and enriched before it can be used as a weapon. Stored radioactive waste needs only to be stolen, and hence needs to be heavily secured.

Capt'n Midnight

Lennoxschips wrote:

There are no uranium mines in Ireland.

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that results from the decay of uranium in rocks and soils. http://www.rpii.ie/radon/maps/map.html

How much does the price of uranium have to go up by before they start mining it here ?

looks like a load up around Dundalk.
http://www.gtk.fi/publ/foregsatlas/maps_table.php - mineral maps
http://www.gtk.fi/publ/foregsatlas/maps/Topsoil/t_icpms_u_edit.pdf - uranium

rsynnott

Lennoxschips wrote:

That was my point. Reliable and economic widespread breeder reactor programmes or thorium fueled nuclear power are also a pipe dream.

First, it's fast breeder reactors. Most reactors are breeders. And they are perfectly reliable, and only slightly miss being economic. Since there's no immediate fuel shortage, they won't be needed for a while, but even if we did need to use them tomorrow, they're not devestatingly expensive.

Lennoxschips wrote:

Breeder reactors have been developed up until this point (Russia, India, France, US) as part of military programmes or by government research, not because they are economically viable.

The fast breeder reactors in France and Russia, at least, are civil reactors. While they were built with state aid, they do produce considerable amounts of useful electricity.

Lennoxschips wrote:

Fast Breeder Reactors have been demonstrated to work, as you say, but are also still in development and have not been shown to be economically feasible yet.

All of those mentioned above are fast breeder reactors, with the exception of the Indian one.

Lennoxschips

Like I said, they are built, along with all other nuclear power plants, with considerable amounts of state subsidy, without which the nuclear power industry would go bankrupt immediately. They are inherently expensive.

This state subsidy comes from taxes, which makes the whole "Nuclear power is cheap on a kW/hr basis" thing a non-runner. Yes, it seems economical on the electricity bill, but only because the consumer is paying for it through other channels.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

Like I said, they are built, along with all other nuclear power plants, with considerable amounts of state subsidy, without which the nuclear power industry would go bankrupt immediately. They are inherently expensive.

This state subsidy comes from taxes, which makes the whole "Nuclear power is cheap on a kW/hr basis" thing a non-runner. Yes, it seems economical on the electricity bill, but only because the consumer is paying for it through other channels.

Ehm, I hate to break it to you, but so are pretty much all other power plants including renewables.

Every single power plant, Dam and Wind Turbine in Ireland were built by state capital expenditure, there is nothing unusual about that, it is the norm.

When we say that nuclear power is cheap and economical, we are not looking at our electricity bills. Rather we are looking at detailed reports compiled by some of the best engineers and economists in the world that look at all costs including capital building costs, fuel costs, operating costs, waste management costs and decommissioning costs. These reports have found that not only is Nuclear power economical, it is actually one of the cheapest forms of power generation.

Lennoxschips

Not according to these studies...

"Nuclear power is also being squeezed on the cost of the electricity it
produces. According to a report last year by the New Economics
Foundation, a London-based think tank, a kilowatt-hour of electricity
from a nuclear generator will cost as much as 8.3 pence once realistic
construction and running costs are factored in, compared with about 3
pence claimed by the nuclear industry -- and that's without including
the cost of managing pollution, insuring the power stations or
protecting them from terrorists. This compares with about 3.4 pence
for gas, 5 pence for coal and up to 7.2 pence for wind power,
according to a report in 2004 by the UK's Royal Academy of
Engineering."

- New Scientist, April 2006

Lennoxschips

Every single power plant, Dam and Wind Turbine in Ireland were built by state capital expenditure, there is nothing unusual about that, it is the norm.

That's because the ESB is government owned, you know that. Something which I'd support.

However, other nations do have a free market energy environment, where privately financed and built power plants are operated. Not one of these is nuclear however, because it is not economically viable. Every single nuclear power station in the world has been built with the help of considerable state subsidies.

SeanW

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Just how many tribunals are running at the moment over allegations of corruption.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that the governmental problems in Ireland are anywhere near the same league as those of the Formet Soviet Union?

As for Lenny's New Scientist article, I would like to know how they arrive at those figures:

1: For Natural Gas, does that take into account the national security implications of depending on imported-via-pipe fossil fuels? And the noticeable CO2 and radon outputs?
2: For Coal, does that price take into account the horrific levels of pollution, the CO2 output of plants, the cost of cleaning up acid rain from Scandinavian lakes? How about the widespread mercury and toxic chemical emissions from coal burning and the health and environmental problems that go with that? I don't think so.
3: Their wind figure ignores the reality of variable, unreliable output. It's not a simple case of spend 7.2p and get a kw/h
4: Nuclear ... whos nuclear programme are they looking at? The UK programme hasn't exactly been a model of best practice, and virtually all of the UKs plants are nearing obsolecense, by that I refer to the MAGNOX and AGR operations from the 60s and 70s unique to the UK.

Does this figure also include credits for the pollutants and greenhouse gases that nuclear power does not emit and indeed saves over fossil fuel operation? Somehow I doubt it.

rsynnott

bk wrote:

Ehm, I hate to break it to you, but so are pretty much all other power plants including renewables.

Every single power plant, Dam and Wind Turbine in Ireland were built by state capital expenditure, there is nothing unusual about that, it is the norm.

For that matter, fossil fuel plants in many countries are heavily subsidised.

bk

A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plants in the UK. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 (€45.44) per tonne CO2 for coal and gas. Wind power was calculated to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power. Without a carbon tax, the cost of production through coal, nuclear and gas ranged £0.022-0.026/kWh and coal gasification was £0.032/kWh. When carbon tax was added (up to £0.025) coal came close to onshore wind (including back-up power) at £0.054/kWh — offshore wind is £0.072/kWh.

Nuclear power remained at £0.023/kWh either way, as it produces negligible amounts of CO2. Nuclear figures included decommissioning costs.

http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report.pdf

Lennoxschips

So there are conflicting reports.

Did the nuclear figure include 100,000 years of round the clock waste storage security?

SeanW

Any report that only looked at the pure financial cost of power generation in the UK only was never going to provide a really good picture for this debate.